Velazquez v. St. Barnabas Hospital

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Velazquez v. St. Barnabas Hospital

57 A.D.3d 251, 867 N.Y.2d 681

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 4, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 57 A.D.3d 251 (Velazquez v. St. Barnabas Hospital) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Velazquez v. St. Barnabas Hospital, 57 A.D.3d 251, 867 N.Y.2d 681 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

The requirements of CPLR 2104 were met when, following a conference and the acceptance of the settlement by plaintiffs counsel, the court marked the case settled (see Hawkins v City of New York, 40 AD3d 327 [2007]; Popovic v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 180 AD2d 493 [1992]). There is no dispute as to the settlement amount agreed to by the parties, and the record, including the affirmation of plaintiffs counsel, confirms that it was contemplated that the settlement agreement would include a confidentiality agreement, which plaintiff’s counsel later deemed inappropriate in hindsight (see Heimuller v Amoco Oil Co., 92 AD2d 882, 884 [1983]). Furthermore, despite plaintiffs claims to the contrary, we find no other basis upon which to invalidate the agreement (see generally Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The requirements of CPLR 2104 were met when, following a conference and the acceptance of the settlement by plaintiffs counsel, the court marked the case settled (see Hawkins v City of New York, 40 AD3d 327 [2007]; Popovic v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 180 AD2d 493 [1992]). There is no dispute as to the settlement amount agreed to by the parties, and the record, including the affirmation of plaintiffs counsel, confirms that it was contemplated that the settlement agreement would include a confidentiality agreement, which plaintiff’s counsel later deemed inappropriate in hindsight (see Heimuller v Amoco Oil Co., 92 AD2d 882, 884 [1983]). Furthermore, despite plaintiffs claims to the contrary, we find no other basis upon which to invalidate the agreement (see generally Hallock v State of New York, 64 NY2d 224, 230 [1984]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Gonzalez, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 251, 867 N.Y.2d 681, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velazquez-v-st-barnabas-hospital-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack